Deleting nons - A new trading system proposal

[himarry 124]

While I see the appeal of this on paper I'm gonna have to say no support. I feel this would work fine for trades up to a non or maybe two, but if you're trading larger sums of valuables the numbers get very overwhelming very fast for those of us not good with numbers :[

I'd rather people come to an agreement on a solid value for 0.25 nons honestly. (3.5 MAs? or even just a solid 3 or 4)

I mean you could honestly keep the 1n measurement and just have anything bellow 1n be ma

example: avocado tends to get 0.75n but more commonly I've seen is 7 ma rather then 7.5 MA if you have a trade that's 47 MA its now 4n + 7 MA

so anything that isn't 1 non do 1-9.5 MA and then anything over 1 non do x non + 1-9.5 MA

[Nahida]

I agree with informally implementing the MA unit measure, but I wholeheartedly disagree with the c$ suggestion.

Trade example one
trades/viewtrade.php?id=115782634&userid=996237&signature=9Up8kCXM3UiifsnNShYz2Q

Green sorbet for Red X pps and Kitsune

I genuinely just think that they didn't like the red X pps since it is hard to trade down. If we rid the nons system - this is definitely one pet that I disagree with putting at 4 MA.

Trade example two
https://www.chickensmoothie.com/trades/viewtrade.php?id=115782910&userid=996237&signature=EPVJLNysM9bYLTHtDJi9Rg
Four kitsunes in exchange for OP's unickorn.

I genuinely don't think this is a balanced trade up - as you've pointed out, but not because of the 0.25n or 4Ma part.

Unickorn has long been highlighted in blue on the previous rares list, and the current horrors list. This means that it has very low demand. This pet rarely trades down. If anything, it is more commonly sold for c$ at 2,000-2,250c$. Including this pet in an auction on the CS Auction thread will likely yield a comment saying "not a big fan of the unickorn... [but the other pets are cute!]".

Kitsunes, on the other hand, are highly sought after. As you've previously experienced, they are high-demand stores. Calling it 0.25n or 4MA isn't the drive of this being cancelled. If we change the other side to 10x 2015 deers, I bet you it will still not go through.

Why? Well, if this were to be compared to a real life scenario - horse dumps are sold as fertilisers in farms for $2/kg. Apples are generally $3.50/kg. If we head to the market, it's super hard to find anyone who would want to trade 1kg of fresh apples for 1.75kg of horse dump. The apple vendor will welcome the person trading cash for their apples, even though it means the horse farmer will first need to sell their fertiliser.

0.25n

This is an easy solve. People have already migrated away from using this unit of measure. Instead, pets are labelled by MAs.

One prominent example is the kitsunes. These are already valued at 4MA - and frequently bought / sold for 1000c$ at minimum.

I don't see this being an issue, or anything that would require further consideration from part of the CS Staffs.

1n = 3000c$

Putting 1n at c$3000 will be counter-productive.

As you've previously explained to me, trading down 1 non to 10x individual MA's demands a lot of time and effort. It's super hard to find anyone who would want to give up 10x desert swirl pps / border collie advents for ONE UR Aussie Cookie. If anything, these trades are usually sent by users who are highly familiar with trading to users who are less diligent in making profits through flipping from trades.

In recognition of this difficulty, it is justifiable that there is a 500-600c$ difference between 10MA 1 nons (which in reality do fetch $2,400 - or in some of your experiences, $2,500) vs 10* 300c$ (1MA).

Imagine if we had implemented this inflated price of 1 non = 3000c$ today. What would this do? Well - people who have stocked up buying nons this Christmas will make HUGE profits (and will also be cutting loss!).

If anything, increasing this will only feed into the loop of c$ inflation. As you've previously pointed out, high demand 1MA are commonly advertised for $400. If this were implemented, the next step from here would be another post saying 'lets make 1 nons 4000c$'...

[Paraps]

honestly i'm all for this just for the sole fact that just having MA i feel makes it simpler and easier to understand.

heck, i don't even know what NON even MEANS lol

[da,]

I agree with informally implementing the MA unit measure, but I wholeheartedly disagree with the c$ suggestion.

Trade example one
trades/viewtrade.php?id=115782634&userid=996237&signature=9Up8kCXM3UiifsnNShYz2Q

Green sorbet for Red X pps and Kitsune

I genuinely just think that they didn't like the red X pps since it is hard to trade down. If we rid the nons system - this is definitely one pet that I disagree with putting at 4 MA.

Trade example two
https://www.chickensmoothie.com/trades/viewtrade.php?id=115782910&userid=996237&signature=EPVJLNysM9bYLTHtDJi9Rg
Four kitsunes in exchange for OP's unickorn.

I genuinely don't think this is a balanced trade up - as you've pointed out, but not because of the 0.25n or 4Ma part.

Unickorn has long been highlighted in blue on the previous rares list, and the current horrors list. This means that it has very low demand. This pet rarely trades down. If anything, it is more commonly sold for c$ at 2,000-2,250c$. Including this pet in an auction on the CS Auction thread will likely yield a comment saying "not a big fan of the unickorn... [but the other pets are cute!]".

Kitsunes, on the other hand, are highly sought after. As you've previously experienced, they are high-demand stores. Calling it 0.25n or 4MA isn't the drive of this being cancelled. If we change the other side to 10x 2015 deers, I bet you it will still not go through.

-snip-

hi! just wanted to let u know these weren’t actual trades, they were sent to the OPs friends specifically just to use as examples of trades for this thread. neither parties were planning on actually trading, they trades were send then instantly canceled just so they could be used here lol.

[winx]

0.25 non = 3/4 ma

This means trades can be fair and unfair all at the same time! It’s chaos and no wonder people have a hard time learning. 3x 0.25 non pets = 0.75 non however it can also = 12 ma ?

Hello!

I’m a bit confused on this math. In all the other examples, the decimal is being moved one to the right, so should it not be 2.5 MA and not 3/4 MA? Then, it would be 3 x 0.25 non = 0.75 non and 2.5 x 3 = 7.5 MA.

[himarry 124]

0.25 non = 3/4 ma

This means trades can be fair and unfair all at the same time! It’s chaos and no wonder people have a hard time learning. 3x 0.25 non pets = 0.75 non however it can also = 12 ma ?

Hello!

I’m a bit confused on this math. In all the other examples, the decimal is being moved one to the right, so should it not be 2.5 MA and not 3/4 MA? Then, it would be 3 x 0.25 non = 0.75 non and 2.5 x 3 = 7.5 MA.

so for the old list 0.25n was 3-4 ma 0.5n was 5-7 and 0.75n was 8-9 and 1n was 10-12 ma the problem these days is most people still use 0.25n is 3-4 ma but don't use any of the other three and its causing way to much confusion

[Bluefly26799]

0.25 non = 3/4 ma

This means trades can be fair and unfair all at the same time! It’s chaos and no wonder people have a hard time learning. 3x 0.25 non pets = 0.75 non however it can also = 12 ma ?

Hello!

I’m a bit confused on this math. In all the other examples, the decimal is being moved one to the right, so should it not be 2.5 MA and not 3/4 MA? Then, it would be 3 x 0.25 non = 0.75 non and 2.5 x 3 = 7.5 MA.

It should… but it’s not. Currently most pets people choose to call 0.25 non are in the 3-4 ma bracket as Himarry says


So there’s the argument to be made that we just fix the issue in the below 0.5 ma department or we reflect on the system as a whole. The term non isn’t needed, it’s like an extra step that’s pointless and confusing. If we kept non and added more values for example 0.1non, 0.2non, 2.4 non ect then the maths is going to be so much more complicated

Why not while we’re fixing the issue of the 0.25 non pets make a step at removing some of the ambiguity of trading and make it easier for people to learn

[Wired]

Without using math, I think one of the biggest problems here is that CS values are very relative rather than absolute… people are very unique in what they want and how they value things on here, even down to the lingo and guides they use. The reason why decimals are tripping people up so much is because when people use them so much, you’d think that the Non decimal value should directly translate into the MA equivalent, which is a fair and natural assumption if you’re trying to trade up as fast as you can using math normally. The problem is that it doesn’t translate into the equivalent in general CS culture, which can get really confusing for some people. When you’re used to seeing certain pets priced at certain rates all the time it sticks in your head more but for somebody who has just started and doesn’t have many pets it can be discouraging. I will say though I have been seeing more people say stuff like “20 MA” lately for sure.

I use terms like .5non/.5MA sometimes but I find that to be easier to translate directly into MA than .25 and .75 and stuff, I like .5s as a climbing bracket because halves are generally pretty easy to understand and if you understand how old rares translate into MA then you can throw a few into a trade to round out a nice value. but I like the idea of using only MAs rather than involving Nons as its just more accessible. There’s all these little catches when it comes to a decimal-heavy system that easily become more tedious than need be. I think it works better on FR where gems are the main currency because it’s mostly one system, you don’t really see people buying things on there for 100 million treasure but you’ll definitely see them buying things for the gem equivalent, whereas here MAs stay relevant into high value trading because of people who collect bulk and own shops

[winx]

0.25 non = 3/4 ma

This means trades can be fair and unfair all at the same time! It’s chaos and no wonder people have a hard time learning. 3x 0.25 non pets = 0.75 non however it can also = 12 ma ?

Hello!

I’m a bit confused on this math. In all the other examples, the decimal is being moved one to the right, so should it not be 2.5 MA and not 3/4 MA? Then, it would be 3 x 0.25 non = 0.75 non and 2.5 x 3 = 7.5 MA.

It should… but it’s not. Currently most pets people choose to call 0.25 non are in the 3-4 ma bracket as Himarry says


So there’s the argument to be made that we just fix the issue in the below 0.5 ma department or we reflect on the system as a whole. The term non isn’t needed, it’s like an extra step that’s pointless and confusing. If we kept non and added more values for example 0.1non, 0.2non, 2.4 non ect then the maths is going to be so much more complicated

Why not while we’re fixing the issue of the 0.25 non pets make a step at removing some of the ambiguity of trading and make it easier for people to learn

I see where the confusion comes from. Ultimately, it's up to the community to address that discrepancy.

Personally, I prefer keeping the MA and non separation because I think of it like coins and dollars. If we only used MA, the values could get pretty large, which wouldn't be an issue, but I find it more intuitive to express it as 1 non = 10 MA. It's a simple shorthand for larger values—kind of like how we say 1 dollar instead of 100 pennies.

That approach is easier for me to grasp, but honestly, either system works. It just comes down to personal preference whether someone prefers using 10 MA or 1 non.

[mercer]

I have no issue with MA and NON, what I have an issue with is this: the system at play is quite literally just like the metric system. For example:
Every 10 old rares make 1 MA
Every 10 MA make 1 NON

Just like there are 100 centimeters in a meter, there are 100 old rares in 1 NON.

So then, it stands to reason that 0.25 NON is 2.5 MA, and 0.25 MA is 2.5 old rares.

If someone says 0.25 NONs and means 3 MA, it's just bad math, and that is what I think should be addressed above all else.